Posts Tagged ‘no boots on the ground’

I can’t help but think back to the Jimmy Carter years and marvel at how history keeps repeating itself because we keep allowing the same sorts of fools to make the same sorts of idiotic mistakes. So we go back to 1979, when the Soviet Union, realizing that Jimmy Carter as a liberal was a pathologically weak and cowardly disgrace, invaded Afghanistan. And Carter’s “show of resolve” was to boycott their damn Olympic Games rather than actually DO anything.

It was as a direct result of the correctly perceived weakness of Jimmy Carter that the United States was forced to begin the process of intervening in Afghanistan. It was Jimmy Carter who began to arm the Taliban, dumbasses. It was Jimmy Carter who because of his failed presidency set up the crisis that has metastasized into the cancer that it is that still haunts the United States decades later.

And here we are, another liberal and another complete meltdown of foreign policy and national security that will have massive consequences on the United States until the day we collapse and miserably perish as a nation.

When we voted for Barack Obama, we voted to perish as a nation, pure and simple.

History is a terrible thing when you doom yourself with terrible leaders.

From the very beginning of Obama’s speech on September 10, it was obvious that the most documented liar in the entire history of the human race who has been seen by more people lying than any human being who ever lived was even more full of his special brand of fecal matter than usual.

I actually have in my possession the hard article from uberleftist Time Magazine dated March 5, 2007. Check out the title: “Why They Hate Each Other.”

Well, according to Obama, they hate each other because they’re not Muslim. Or else they wouldn’t be killing Muslims, would they?

Take, for example, the Iran-Iraq War. One-and-a-half million Muslims were killed – by other Muslims.

I mean, by Obama’s argument, the Sunnis aren’t “Islamic” because most of their victims have been Shi’ites and the Shi’ites aren’t Muslim because most of their victims have been Sunnis. So there ARE no “Muslims” and there’s no such thing as “Islamic.”

But there you have it: Barry Hussein, in his demonic wisdom, has just solved the problem of Islam the same way he solved the problem of the war on terror that we are reeling from now: he just defined it away. Because he is a liar without shame, without honor, without decency, without virtue and without integrity and because he is a true fool.

Obama says Islamic State isn’t a “state.” Well, THAT’S convenient, given the fact that they BECAME a “state” under YOUR failed watch due to YOUR failed policies.

I remember as an example going against Republicans when George H.W. Bush said, “There’s no recession.” Well, shoot, I had got out of the Army and graduated from college just in time to run full facial into that “no recession.” But yes, there was TOO a recession. And all denying facts does is make those who share your ideology look like FOOLS. Which is precisely what everyone who share’s Obama’s ideology is right now.

Islamic State has seized territory the freaking size of the United Kingdom. It has trained, expert fighters who were part of Saddam Hussein’s officer corps. And to make it even worse, it has FAR more and better funding available than Osama bin Laden’s pre-9/11 attackers ever dreamed of having to finance their operations.

ISIS can muster 20,000 to 31,500 fighters, triple previous estimates: CIAA new CIA assessment reportedly shows that the Islamic State can gather many more fighters than was previously thought. A spokesman for the intelligence agency told CNN that their recruitment has been stronger since June, ‘following battlefield successes and the declaration of a caliphate.’
BY Michael Walsh / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS /
Published: Friday, September 12, 2014, 11:43 AM/ Updated: Friday, September 12, 2014, 11:49 AM

The CIA estimates that ISIS has more than three times the number of fighters it previously thought.

The Islamic State can call upon between 20,000 and 31,500 terrorists throughout Iraq and Syria, according to a spokesman for the intelligence agency.

“This new total reflects an increase in members because of stronger recruitment since June following battlefield successes and the declaration of a caliphate, greater battlefield activity and additional intelligence,” the spokesman told CNN.

Experts used to think the number of fighters for the jihadist group, whose savagery has been widely condemned, topped out at 10,000.

The CIA assessment’s new figure was revealed on the 13th anniversary of 9/11 — a day after President Obama outlined his plan to “dismantle and ultimately destroy” ISIS in an address to the nation.

And yet that factual denial of reality is the quintessence of Obama’s “strategy” and his “speech.”

Here’s the Los Angeles Times – note, NOT Fox News because they don’t like Obama because they’re racists – assessment of Obama’s “plan”:

Analysis Obama strategy in Iraq, Syria hinges on long shots
By Patrick J. McDonnell
SHARELINES
▼Sunni-Shiite divisions in Iraq too profound for quick fix
▼U.S. envisions unity and an effective army in Iraq, and a reenergized ‘moderate’ rebel front in Syria
▼Iraq, not Syria, seen as key concern for U.S.
September 11, 2014, 7:10 PM|Reporting from Beirut

As the United States pivots back onto a war footing in the Middle East, President Obama’s strategy is rooted in at least three basic assumptions, all of them highly questionable.

In his prime-time speech Wednesday, Obama envisioned the emergence of a newly unified Iraqi government, an effective Iraqi fighting force and a reenergized, U.S.-backed “moderate” rebel front in Syria. Along with U.S. training and airstrikes, and help from international allies, those three factors would spell defeat for Islamic State militants who have made deep inroads in both Syria and Iraq.

All three goals seem long shots in a region where U.S. aims have often foundered amid harsh and intractable realities.

Well that’s just GREAT.

If you like your Islamic State, you can keep your Islamic State. If you DON’T like Your Islamic State, you can get your head slowly and agonizingly cut off with a deliberately small and most likely intentionally dull knife.

(Reuters) – U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Thursday Arab states would play a critical role in a coalition against Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria, but no country in the alliance was talking about sending ground troops to participate.

You know, versus the 37 countries that sent 26,000 troops into harm’s way that Barack Obama and his demonic Democrat Party slandered as “cowboy diplomacy.”

Allow me to pour something called “reality” on Obama’s “strategy”: SOMEBODY HAS TO SEND TROOPS OR PLEASE JUST SURRENDER TO THE TERRORISTS AND SUBMIT BY BARING YOUR THROAT TO THEIR KNIVES.

“If somebody wants to think about it as being a war with [ISIS], they can do so, but the fact is that it’s a major counterterrorism operation that will have many different moving parts,” Kerry said Thursday on CNN. “I don’t think people need to get into war fever on this,” he told CBS News’ Margaret Brennan.

Okay, nothing to see here, folks. Don’t get all worked up just because this ISLAMIC STATE CALIPHATE my boss created just sawed two Americans’ heads off in a declaration of war against America. Now please go back to sleep.

Fine. If we’re not at war with these people, THEN WHY THE HELL ARE WE GOING TO BOMB THEM???

Don’t worry. It will be “unbelievably small.” Pinpricks, really.

Let’s just let history keep repeating itself until we’re all just shocked and appalled that we’re suddenly in ARMAGEDDON and there’s no way out because every path leading away from the end of the human species was long since eroded away by cowardly, dithering liberals.

There comes that point where you either show yourself to be serious or you show yourself to be a joke. And Barack Obama is a joke and he is not to be taken seriously when it comes to anything other than his fascist domestic ideological agenda.

Obama’s “strategy” rests on refusing to ever send US troops back to the region that he himself acknowledged George W. Bush left safe and secure and stable and instead relying on fighters that he openly MOCKED just a short time ago.

I love this headline because it has the virtue of being so completely true:

The administration’s longstanding position has been that ISIS’s Syria presence is a problem, but not one that the US can solve through military force. As recently as August 8, Obama downplayed the idea that arming supposedly moderate Syrian rebels — most notably those under the banner of the Free Syrian Army — would help to build a strong fighting force.

He told the New York Times that “there’s not as much capacity as you would hope” for molding an effective group out of “an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth.” The administration actually did propose spending $500 million in late June to arm and train the rebels as a counterweight to ISIS, but very few people believed that would be enough help to make the rebels competent to destroy ISIS.

And as for airstrikes in Syria, he said in August that “we can run [ISIS] off for a certain period of time, but as soon as our planes are gone, they’re coming right back in” without an effective local partner…

Obama mocked arming these very same people his “strategy” now completely depends on as a FANTASY just ONE MONTH AGO:

The weapons the Obama Administration sent to Syria famously ended up in the hands of ISIS and Al Qaeda. Some of those weapons are likely being used now in Iraq against government forces and to commit the kind of massacres President Obama ordered American air power in to try and stop.

In an interview with Thomas Friedman of The New York Times, Obama not only declined to defend his policy of giving weapons to the Syrian rebels but offered a withering critique of his policy and the reasoning behind it.

With “respect to Syria,” said the president, the notion that arming the rebels would have made a difference has “always been a fantasy. This idea that we could provide some light arms or even more sophisticated arms to what was essentially an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth, and that they were going to be able to battle not only a well-armed state but also a well-armed state backed by Russia, backed by Iran, a battle-hardened Hezbollah, that was never in the cards.”

Even now, the president said, the administration has difficulty finding, training and arming a sufficient cadre of secular Syrian rebels: “There’s not as much capacity as you would hope.”

Pardon me while I pick my jaw up off the floor. It was President Obama who, despite warnings and protests from numerous groups, bypassed a law against arming terrorists to give weapons to the Syrian rebels. Now it was all a “fantasy” and had no hope of working?

Well, Mr. Wright, I suppose you can put either reset your jaw or just start stomping on it while it’s on the floor. Because Obama just went back on the policy he had just went back on.

Barack Obama is demon-possessed, and that’s the moral equivalent of being completely INSANE.

WASHINGTON (AP) – On the cusp of intensified airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, President Barack Obama is using the legal grounding of the congressional authorizations President George W. Bush relied on more than a decade ago to go to war. But Obama has made no effort to ask Congress to explicitly authorize his own conflict. […]

As a U.S. senator from Illinois running for president in 2007, Obama tried to prevent Bush’s administration from taking any military action against Iran unless it was explicitly authorized by Congress. A Senate resolution Obama sponsored died in committee. […]

The White House has cited the 2001 military authorization Congress gave Bush to attack any countries, groups or people who planned, authorized, committed or aided the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Earnest on Thursday described the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, generally known as the AUMF, as one that Obama “believes continues to apply to this terrorist organization that is operating in Iraq and Syria.” […]

The White House also finds authorization under the 2002 resolution that approved the invasion of Iraq to identify and destroy weapons of mass destruction…

Obama is using both authorizations as authority to act even though he publicly sought their repeal last year. In a key national security address at the National Defense University in May 2013, Obama said he wanted to scrap the 2001 order because “we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight.” Two months later, Obama’s national security adviser, Susan Rice, asked House Speaker John Boehner to consider repealing the 2002 Iraq resolution, calling the document “outdated.”

This is the God-cursed, demon-possessed, dishonest, ignorant FOOL that you trusted your lives and the lives of your children with, America.

By the way, those two resolutions used the word “war” a total of nine different times. Since Obama has refused to use the word “war,” they clearly don’t apply.

I don’t know about you, but I think about this dishonest, depraved fool who by his own rhetoric is the very worst kind of hypocrite, and I feel like vomiting until every piece of intestine I’ve got is lying on the floor in a bloody pile.

What Obama should ask for is for Congress to pass an “Irresolution to Surrender” rather than a resolution to fight a damn war. Because he HAS no resolve and under his “leadership” America never will have any “resolution” to do anything other than bow down before his Muslim masters.

And ALL liberals are demon-possessed; it is as quintessential to being a progressive liberal as being a total hypocrite is to being a progressive liberal. Thus Jay Carney helps CNN prove that they are a network of propagandists that make Joseph Goebbels Ministry of Propaganda look honest by comparison and claims that no one could have possible known that terrorism would be so resurgent if we abandoned Iraq.

“I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.” — George W. Bush, 2007

Everything Bush said would happen if we abandoned Iraq has happened. Every single damn thing. Anyone at this point who says Obama was right on Iraq is worse than a fool; he or she is demon-possessed.

That set me thinking about an incident that has been widely reported, but whose true significance might not have been fully appreciated. Last year, the entire US national security team came up with a unanimous recommendation. These people very rarely agree with one another, but they all told Obama that the time had come for America to arm the Syrian rebels. The degree of consensus was remarkable: Leon Panetta, then defence secretary, Hillary Clinton, then secretary of state, General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs, and General David Petraeus, then head of the CIA, all advised Obama to tip the balance of the war by sending weapons to carefully vetted units within Syria’s insurgency. And the President turned them down.

“There may be another time in history when a President’s entire national security team recommended a course of action and he overruled them, but if there is I’m not aware of it,” says Senator John McCain in the New Yorker.

If things had become better in Syria, then it could be said that Obama was right and everybody else was wrong. But, you see, things are so much worse in Syria due to Obama’s dithering inaction it is beyond UNREAL. And Obama’s foolishness will haunt us for years to come; we had a real opportunity to knock out Assad because there is no question his regime was teetering when literally even ALL his OWN advisors and John McCain and Lindsey Graham and all the conservative Republicans were urging him to arm the pro-democracy rebels. We had a real chance – even Obama’s own top experts agreed on that – to have a pro-democracy government rise in Syria. But because Obama refused to act decisively, the “pro-democracy rebels” – having no weapons and no support and no means to fight – were killed off by both Assad’s regime and by the better organized and better funded and better equipped terrorist organizations like ISIS/ISIL. And our opportunity vanished.

And now if we bomb Syria, but refuse to put boots on the ground as Obama is insisting upon, who is going to benefit most from bombing ISIL in Syria? Bashar al-Assad and his thug regime, that’s who. Because rest assured HIS boots on the ground will be there to mop up and occupy what we refused to enter.

So now – thanks to Obama – we get to choose between a vicious terrorist army and a vicious dictator thug who has always supported terrorism. Because when evil rules, there ARE no good choices.

And we’re also in the same sort of horrible position in Iraq. Because thanks to Obama’s total abject failure there, helping Iraq means helping Iran. It didn’t have to be that way.

As Obama abandoned Iraq, he took credit for the “victory” that Bush had won by fighting even as he claimed credit for getting us out. Vice President Joe Biden said Iraq was “one of the great achievements of this administration.” Barack Obama claimed that Iraq was and would remain “sovereign, stable, and self-reliant.”

We would have had an Iraq that was free of ISIS/ISIL on the one hand, and significantly free of Iranian influence on the other. But now, thanks again to Obama, we are cursed with both dominating Iraq. And we have literally become the ally of the most dangerous and most poisonous regime on the face of the earth as we help IRAN drive out the Islamic State from the Iraqi territory they now dominate.

There are no good choices now. Obama has made any good choice impossible. There are only bad choices or even worse choices guaranteed down the road if we fear the death toll that will be caused by the bad choices.

You need to understand something: what is happening now is the result of a fundamental difference between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party.

The Republican Party believes we have to confront evil and declare war on it and fight it and kill it. The Democrat Party denies the existence of evil. They simply do. They view themselves a ubersophisticated, and able to see all the many nuances and shades of gray that they mock black-and-white- and right-and-wrong-seeing Republicans for not understanding. And professing themselves to be wise, Democrats become fools and complete moral idiots.